CASE #11 In re: Al C. Argosino, B.M. No. 712, July 13, 1995 (246 SCRA 14) FACTS Along with thirteen other people, Argosino was accused of killing Raul Camaligan, who died as a result of hazing that took place during university fraternity initiation ceremonies. He was sentence to suffer imprisonment but Argosino and others filed an application for probation and was granted. Argosino took the bar exam and passed, but was not allowed to take the lawyer's oath of office. He filed a petition to praying that he would be allowed to take attorney’s oath and be able to practice law. ISSUE: Whether Argosino should be allowed to take lawyers oath and be admitted to the practice of law HELD: The court stress that good moral character is a requirement in order to take the bar examinations and also at the time of application for admission to the bar and to take the attorney's oath of office. Mr. Argosino need submit to evidence that he may be now regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character imposed upon those seeking admission to the bar. The evidences may consist sinter alia, of sworn certifications from responsible members of the community who have a good reputation for truth and who have actually known Mr. Argosino for a significant period of time. And must prove to the court that he has tried to make up for his mistake and must prove that he is now a different and better person which shows that he is morally fit to practice law (Yung next step after niyan pero pwedeng wag niyo na to sulat ). After that need niya magsulat ng letter addressed dun sa family nung victim Mr. Argosino is hereby DIRECTED to inform this Court, by appropriate written manifestation, of the names and addresses of the father and mother (in default thereof, brothers and sisters, if any, of Raul Camaligan), within ten (10) day from notice hereof. Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the parents or brothers and sisters, if any, of Raul Camaligan. CASE #12 In Re Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling in the 2002 Bar Exams BM no. 1154 June 8, 2004 FACTS On October 14, 2002, Atty. Melendrez filed a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar. Melendrez alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3) pending criminal cases before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)Furthermore, Melendrez alleges that Meling has been using the title "Attorney" in his communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, even though he is not a member of the Bar. ISSUE Whether Meling’s non-disclosure of his criminal charges is a valid ground for him to be disqualified in taking Bar Examinations and taking oath of Lawyers HELD YES. Non-disclosure of criminal charges is considered as an act of dishonesty Good moral character includes at least common honesty. The non-disclosure of Meling of the criminal charges filed against him makes him also answerable under Rule 7.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that "a lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.” Note: Meling also received sanctions/ penalty in using the title of “Atty” when he is not a member of the bar CASE #13 13. In the Matter of the Petition for Disbarment of Telesporo A. Diao AC No. 244, March 27, 19 A.C. No. 244 March 29, 1963 FACTS After passing the Telesforo A. Diao was admitted to the Bar. After 2 years Severino Martinez accused him of not completing his high school training; and never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom which in contrary to his submitted credentials that he had completed the "required pre-legal education". Diao claims that there’s been confusion in his school record but he had obtained his A.A. title from the Arellano University in April, 1949, and it was certified. ISSUE Whether Telesforo A. Diao be strike out from the roll of attorneys. HELD Yes. The confusion or mistake that Diao is claiming is entirely his fault. Diao never obtained his A.A. from Quisumbing College; and yet his application for examination represented him as an A.A. graduate (1940-1941) of such college, if he only disclosed that he began his law studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree then he should not have been allowed to take the bar but since it was shown in his application that he is a graduate of Quisumbing College then he was permitted to take the bar. Diao should be strike out from the list of honor roll due to his false representations. Note Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential.. CASE #14 14. Petition for leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin Dacanay (BM No, 1678, December 17, 2007) B.M. No. 1678 December 17, 2007 FACTS In March 1960, the petitioner was admitted to the bar in the Philippines. He practiced law, before he migrated to Canada to seek medical assistance for his illness, he applied for Canadian citizenship and was approved of the citizenship in 2004. On July 14 2006, petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship and returned to the Philippines and wants to resume practicing law. ISSUE Whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship in May 2004 HELD No. A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225, because under its condition "all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship”. Since, the petitioner reacquired his citizenship pursuant RA 9225, and he has again met all the qualifications and has none of the disqualifications for membership in the bar. The court therefore granted the petition of Dacanay and after passing the requirement he may now once again take oath as a member of the Philippine bar. Note NEED NIYA TO GAWIN after neto all goods na sya (a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP; (b) the payment of professional tax; (c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is specially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and (d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. CASE #15 CASE #15 In re: Maquera, BM No. 793, July 29, 2004 FACTS In August 20, 1996, the District Court of Guam informed this Court of the suspension of Atty. Leon G. Maquera (Maquera) from the practice of law in Guam for two (2) years pursuant to the Decision rendered by the Superior Court of Guam on May 7, 1996 in Special Proceedings Case No. SP0075-94, a disciplinary case filed by the Guam Bar Ethics Committee against Maquera. He was suspended from the practice of law in Guam for misconduct, as he acquired his client's property as payment for his legal services, then sold it and as a consequence obtained an unreasonably high fee for handling his client's case. ISSUE Whether a member of the Philippine Bar who was disbarred or suspended from the practice of law in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney be meted the same sanction as a member of the Philippine Bar for the same infraction committed in the foreign jurisdiction HELD No. The ruling of Guam Superior Court does not automatically suspend and disbarred Masquera in the Philippines .Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the acts which led to his suspension in Guam are mere grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction, at that only if the basis of the foreign court's action includes any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction. Likewise, the judgment of the Superior Court of Guam only constitutes prima facie evidence of Maquera's unethical acts as a lawyer. More fundamentally, due process demands that he be given the opportunity to defend himself and to present testimonial and documentary evidence on the matter in an investigation to be conducted in accordance with Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court. In the mean time in the jurisdiction of the Philippines Atty. Maquera is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR or until he shall have paid his membership dues, whichever comes later.
